As thoroughly awful as everyone knows cigarettes to be  still the No. 1 cause of premature death in this country  public officials walk a blurry line when they try to reduce smoking's terrible toll. As long as they lack the will to ban tobacco altogether, they face all sorts of ethical, legal and political problems in regulating a product that is, after all, perfectly legal.

High tobacco taxes, critics say, unfairly punish smokers, who are disproportionately low income. Banning advertising of a legal product raises free-speech issues. And can tobacco companies really be forced to put large graphic warnings on their own products to discourage customers from buying them? Does that make sense?

Now, the New York City Council, backed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, is considering another tactic: making it illegal for anyone younger than 21 to buy cigarettes. Currently, anyone 18 or over can buy a pack.

Bloomberg has taken a lot of ribbing for previous nanny-state proposals involving salt and trans-fats and, especially, for his plan to ban the serving of soft drinks larger than 16 ounces. The new proposal would, at least theoretically, make cigarettes difficult to obtain by those who are most vulnerable to peer pressure and tobacco marketing. Prevention makes sense because smoking is so addictive that more than 85% of those who try to quit relapse.

Yet the good intentions are outweighed by the proposal's problems. For one thing, it's practically doomed to have minimal effect. A 20-minute bus ride will transport any Bronx resident to neighboring Yonkers, where 18-year-olds would still be allowed to buy as many cartons as they wanted. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, nearly 90% of smokers

The problem is that too many people want the gov’t to be parent. Smoking, drinking porn, drugs, crappy food—the whole lot. Can’t people make up their minds not to do something even though it may not be banned or made illegal or some kind of a restriction put on it by the state?

7
posted on 04/24/2013 3:00:06 PM PDT
by brooklyn dave
(I hope the FEMA camps are comfortable when they come for me)

By the way, according to a recent anti-smoking ad I saw on TV, diabetes is now caused by smoking........

Lots of propaganda ads against smoking featuring gruesome vids going on these days. I wonder why the pro-life, aka ANTI-ABORTION, groups aren't allowed to air the same type of ad campaigns?..........I know, dumb question.

[[public officials walk a blurry line when they try to reduce smoking’s terrible toll.]]

They don’t weaqlk ANY line- they jumped clean across any line a long time ago and no logner care whether what they do is legal or constitutional or not- they are blatantly givign American citizens the middle finger because they learned that American will do NOTHING to prevent htem from vioalting our rights

I was making a similar argument at work today with some nanny stater lovers. If an 18 year old isn’t responsible enough to make a personal decision such as smoking or having a beer, why do we let them vote for things affecting the entire nation?

Of course I know the answer. This enables the dems to win more elections due to the easily swayed age group coming from the mass indoctrination centers we commonly call schools and universities. It’s easy to convince young adults to vote for a seemingly Utopian society when they have no clue it can never happen.

I had a smoke nazi try to tell me his best BFF died of prostate cancer because he smoked. I said he was either using his butt as an ashtray, or they were engaged in what some might call, non-traditional whoopee. Thought I was gonna have to leave a mark on the poofster to get him to calm down. Jeez they’re touchy.

Most cigarette smokers lack sleep for long periods of time at some period or other in their lives, IMO (infantry-related duties, night/swing shift employees, laborers with long drives home, all). Quitting requires repeated efforts, healthier exercise and persistent sleep habits for many to quit. There are also noticeable physical changes for older folks who quit. Don’t blame or browbeat smokers. Encourage them.

24
posted on 04/24/2013 4:20:45 PM PDT
by familyop
(We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)

I have suspected for many years that the cigarette manufacturers, back when the prohibition first started, were actually pushing for the laws that prohibit merchants from selling tobacco to minors. At that point, smoking was becoming less popular all around. I think that someone figured out that a great way to get teens to take up the habit was to make it taboo for them.

Before about age 21, children are more susceptible to addictive substances, as their brains are not fully mature, and adjust themselves to be more easily addicted, and harder to break out of the addiction.

The closer they get to 21, the harder it is to program their brain this way, and after 21, it is hard for them to get addicted, and easier for them to break their addiction.

Importantly, getting addicted to anything before 21 makes it easier to get addicted to other addictive substances for the rest of their lives as well.

For this reason, it is not out of the question to consider a complete addictive substance prohibition against minors under 21. Not just illegal drugs, but especially alcohol, the most dangerous drug, nicotine, caffeine, as well as strict controls for addictive pharmaceutical drugs as well. This means drugs against ADHD/ADD, antidepressants, addictive painkillers and other trendy pharma.

(I will add that addiction applies to psychological conditioning as well. This is why socialists, cultish religions and military recruiters prefer those under 21, as their brains are more malleable.)

You are lucky. My dad died at the young age of 41 due to a massive heart attack and he also suffered with emphysema for years. His two pack a day habit wasn't kind to him. My grandmother (his mother) made it to 73, had quadruple bypass surgery and a pacemaker. Another relative had to use that speaking device to talk due to throat surgery. If you ask my sister who is the president of the United States she will say George W. Bush. You see he was the President when she had a massive brain aneurysm which wiped out her short-term memory. I do feel guilty about thinking that it would have been better if she had died.

On the positive smoking front, my other grandmother (mothers side of the family) smoked for years, but quit a while ago. She is closer to 100 than 90. Genetics must play a part.

I used to smoke too, but quit very easily on 10/02/1980. Anyone can quit if they really want to. If you want to smoke I don't care and I do wish you luck. Some people do live a long time as a smoker.

The downside is that smokers are an easy target for sin taxes. Now they're coming after junk food. I wonder what will be next.

Simply put, freedom is not possible if you are not allowed to make “bad” choices for yourself and suffer the consequences. Or in other words, freedom involves making choices and taking responsibility and when the choices/responsibility are taken away so is freedom.

The land of the free and home of the brave is now just a distant memory...

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.